Tifia increases solve the aff—make infrastructure projects easier to fund
Download 0.66 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Link - Unresponsive to Voters
- No bipartisanship support for National Infrastructure Bank
- Republicans won’t vote on the NIB proposal – they oppose spending
- Senate Democrats won’t vote on NIB – they think it would be too slow for the fiscal stimulus
- Their solvency claims are too big- if the NIB is even feasible, it wouldn’t be enough to solve for all their advantages- no solvency for creating jobs and reviving the economy
- NIB has taken a back seat for Obama in the status quo- no bi-part support not fast enough for the stimulus and job creation
- GOP dislikes the plan – viewed as adding a new bureaucracy, expanding executive power, and stimulus spending
- Bank unpopular with republicans
- Politically unpopular - backlash against new programs
- Will face backlash from rural lawmakers
- Link – Mica Dislikes the Plan
- An infrastructure bank is extremely unpopular in Congress
- NIB unpopular among smaller, rural states
- Link Outweighs Link Turn
- Opposition in the House – blocking spending outweighs benefits of the plan
- No risk of a link turn – no one is supporting the plan
- AT: Insulated From Political Agenda
- NIB is unpopular – fiscal constraints and Congressional hesitancy.
- High speed rail has fierce opposition
- Mass transit unpopular with Republicans
- Democrats won’t push – they want immediate results that the plan can’t provide
DisadvantagesFederalismFederalism LinkBank shifts power to the federal governmentMallett et al, Specialist in Transportation Policy, 2011 (William, Steven Maguire, Specialist in Public Finance, and Kevin R. Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, 12-14-11, Congressional Research Service, “National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf, p. 16, accessed 6-23-12, LH) A fourth possible disadvantage is that a national infrastructure bank may shift some decision making from the state and local level to the federal level. Although the initiation of projects will come from state and local decision-makers, a national infrastructure bank will make the final determination about financing. Some argue that this will reduce state and local flexibility and give too much authority to centralized decision-makers divorced from local conditions. 54 Politics/ElectionsLink - Unresponsive to VotersLinks to politics – viewed as unresponsive to votersUtt, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow, 11 (Ronald Utt, PhD, is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, October 30 2011, "The Limited Benefits of a National Infrastructure Bank," http://www.hawaiireporter.com/the-limited-benefits-of-a-national-infrastructure-bank/123, accessed 6/25/12, CNM) Previous sections have already touched on the management challenges confronting any of these banks. If these banks are allowed to borrow on their own, or if they are funded by a large, one-time appropriation that can be leveraged into more debt and loan guarantees, it seems that Congress and the President would have little say in what they did and how they did it. Indeed, the nation has already experienced a couple of such incidents, and they are commonly referred to as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the bills to create infrastructure banks include many pages of exhaustive detail on the prospective management structure, a pseudo-corporate board, and its duties. Degrees of independence vary from one proposal to another, but the greater the independence, the more likely it is that the bank may wander away from the changed priorities of future Congresses and Presidents and instead pursue opportunities that are not necessarily in the public interest. In a democratic society where voters periodically get to pick the people and policies that govern them, it might not be appropriate to have entities supported by taxpayers that are not responsive to the voters. AT – Bipartisan SupportNo bipartisanship support for National Infrastructure BankOrski, Innovation NewsBriefs editor and publisher, 11 [Ken, 8/30/11, Newgerography, “INFRASTRUCTURE BANK: LOSING FAVOR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE” http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house, accessed, 6/28/12,LPS] Eighteen months ago, on January 20, 2010, a group of influential politicians, accompanied by a large coterie of representatives of the Washington transportation community, gathered at the Capitol to urge Congress and the Obama Administration to create a "National Infrastructure Bank" to help finance infrastructure investments. The speakers included all the well-known advocates of the Bank: Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), author of an Infrastructure Bank bill (H.R. 2521), former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and Felix Rohatyn, the spiritual godfather of the movement. Standing beside them, in a gesture of support and solidarity, was a large group of executives representing the transportation industry, labor unions and advocacy groups.For a while, it seemed like their plea would be answered. A proposal for a $30 billion infrastructure bank focused on transportation-related investments was included in the President’s FY 2011 budget proposal unveiled last September. As recently as last month, Mr. Obama was mentioning the Infrastructure Bank as part of his job stimulus plan to be unveiled after Labor Day. But today, the idea is on life support. Neither the Senate nor the House have seen fit to include the Bank in their proposed transportation bills. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike are in agreement that decisionmaking control over major federal investments should not be ceded to a group of "unelected bureaucrats." Rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy, they think the focus should be placed on expanding federal credit assistance tools already in place, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program (RRIF).
[Ken, 8/30/11, Newgerography, “INFRASTRUCTURE BANK: LOSING FAVOR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE” http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house, accessed, 6/28/12,LPS] There are other reasons for congressional skepticism. House Republicans are suspicious that the Obama-proposed Bank is nothing more than a vehicle for more stimulus spending, disguised as "capital investment." They want the Administration to be more specific about its proposal: how the Bank would be funded, what kind of investments it would fund and how the $30 billion capital would be repaid. "If this is more of the same stimulus spending, we won’t support it," Kevin Smith, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has been quoted as saying.House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) thinks state-level infrastructure banks would be a more appropriate means of financing major transportation projects at the state and local level. Decentralized infrastructure financing would "keep the federal financing bureaucracy at a minimum and maximize states’ financial capabilities," according to the House transportation reauthorization proposal.
[Ken, 8/30/11, Newgerography, “INFRASTRUCTURE BANK: LOSING FAVOR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE” http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house, accessed, 6/28/12,LPS] Senate Democrats, while not necessarily opposed to another fiscal stimulus, want quick results. They fear that a centralized Infrastructure Bank, with its complex governance structure and layers of bureaucratic conditions, requirements and approvals would be far too slow and cumbersome to be an effective job generator. One or two years could pass before large-scale projects appropriate for Bank financing would get evaluated, selected, approved and under construction, one Senate aide told us. What is more, there is a lack of agreement on how the proposed Infrastructure Bank should function. The Administration wants a mechanism that would serve several different purposes. In the words of Undersecretary for Transportation Policy Roy Kienitz who testified at a September 21, 2010 hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, "We need a financing institution that can provide a range of financing options— grants for projects that by their nature cannot generate revenue, and loans and loan guarantees for projects that can pay for their construction costs out of a revenue stream. In short, we need the Infrastructure Bank that the President has proposed."But, "banks don’t give out grants, they give out loans. There is already a mechanism for giving out federal transportation grants — it’s called the highway bill," countered Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Their solvency claims are too big- if the NIB is even feasible, it wouldn’t be enough to solve for all their advantages- no solvency for creating jobs and reviving the economyOrski, Innovation NewsBriefs editar and publisher, 11 [Ken, 8/30/11, Newgerography, “INFRASTRUCTURE BANK: LOSING FAVOR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE” http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house, accessed, 6/28/12,LPS] If the proposed entity is to be a true bank – as proposed in a recent bill sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce– its scope would be confined to projects that can repay interest and principal on their loans with a dedicated stream of revenue — in other words, the Bank could finance only income-generating facilities such as toll roads and bridges. By all estimates, such projects will constitute only a small fraction of the overall inventory of transportation improvements needed to be financed in the years ahead, the bulk of which will be reconstruction of existing toll-free Interstate highways. Hence, a true Infrastructure Bank would be of limited help in creating jobs and reviving the economy, critics argue. “A national infrastructure bank must garner broad bipartisan support to move forward," says Michael Likosky, Director of NYU's Center on Law & Public Finance and author of a recent book, Obama's Bank:Financing a Durable New Deal. "This means no grants, a multi-sector reach and a realistic idea of what projects will benefit straight away." NIB has taken a back seat for Obama in the status quo- no bi-part support not fast enough for the stimulus and job creationOrski, Innovation NewsBriefs editar and publisher, 11 [Ken, 8/30/11, Newgerography, “INFRASTRUCTURE BANK: LOSING FAVOR WITH THE WHITE HOUSE” http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house, accessed, 6/28/12,LPS] President Obama was expected to include the infrastructure bank among his recommended stimulus measures when he lays out his new job-creation plan before the congressional deficit reduction committee in early September. But lately, he seems to have put the idea on the back burner and turned his attention to more traditional "shovel-ready" highway investments using existing financing programs. His advisers may have concluded that the Bank will do little to stimulate immediate job creation--- and that the proposal will find little support among congressional Democrats and Republicans alike. If so, check off the Infrastructure Bank as an idea whose time had come and gone.. Link - GOP BacklashGOP dislikes the plan – viewed as adding a new bureaucracy, expanding executive power, and stimulus spendingMitchell, Wall Street Journal, 11 (Josh, Wall Street Journal, 9-15-11, "Plan for Highway Bank Faces Uphill Battle: White House Wants Extra Money for Transportation Projects, While GOP Questions How Funds Will Be Allocated, Spent," http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500692477795126.html, accessed 6-26-11, CNM) The president's budget proposal in February suggested the bank reside in the Transportation Department and be controlled by an executive director and board of officials from various federal agencies. Projects would need to meet "rigorous" criteria to ensure they benefit the maximum number of people, preventing more "bridges to nowhere." Some Republicans say that such a bank would simply add a new bureaucracy in Washington and shift decision-making from Congress to the executive branch. "How this project would be funded, what it would fund and how those funds would be repaid are critical questions the Obama administration has not answered yet," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio). "If this is more of the same 'stimulus' spending, we won't support it." The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
(Keith Yost, September 20, 2011, MIT newspaper, “Opinion: No national infrastructure investment bank: Infrastructure investment is a state responsibility,” http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N38/yost.html accessed 6/25/12 BC) Democratic activists are thrilled with Obama’s supposedly new “toughness.” But getting tough is only a good strategy if you’ve got an idea that’s actually worth fighting for. Two weeks from now, every leading Republican is going to have worked out the obvious counter-argument to a national infrastructure bank, and two weeks after that they’re going to have integrated the bank into their stump speeches as yet another example of intellectually bankrupt federal overreach. Unpopular in CongressPolitically unpopular - backlash against new programsProgressive Railroading 11 (10-13-11 “Rail News: Federal Legislation & Regulation Mica reiterates opposition to national infrastructure bank,” http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Mica-reiterates-opposition-to-national-infrastructure-bank--28418# accessed 6-26-12 BC) Yesterday, U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said at a committee hearing that President Obama’s proposal for a “national infrastructure bank” to help finance infrastructure maintenance and improvements is “dead on arrival in Congress.” “We do not need more federal bureaucracy,” said Mica in a prepared statement. “The federal government also has existing financing programs that serve the same purpose as a national infrastructure bank, such as TIFIA, RRIF and others, that we can improve and strengthen.” Link - Rural BacklashWill face backlash from rural lawmakersMitchell, Wall Street Journal, 11 (Josh, Wall Street Journal, 9-15-11, "Plan for Highway Bank Faces Uphill Battle: White House Wants Extra Money for Transportation Projects, While GOP Questions How Funds Will Be Allocated, Spent," http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500692477795126.html, accessed 6-26-11, CNM) Both proposals probably would face resistance from rural lawmakers, whose states are less likely to have large-scale projects able to draw private investors. They fear that the funding would go to the most populous regions, such as California and the Northeast. Link – Mica Dislikes the PlanMica dislikes the planClark et al, McClatchy Newspapers, 11 (Lesley Clark, David Lightman and William Douglas, The McClatchy Company is the third-largest newspaper company in the United States, "Obama rallies crowd to his jobs plan - in Rep. Cantor's hometown," http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/09/123673/obama-rallies-crowd-to-his-jobs.html, accessed 6-26-12, CNM) Outright resistance surfaced to some of his proposals. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, was unenthusiastic about plans for an infrastructure bank to help provide financing for road, bridge and other public works projects. "I don't like the idea of a national bank," he said. "People don't need to parade to Washington on bended knee for this help." An infrastructure bank is extremely unpopular in CongressLovaas, Natural Resources Defense Council, Transportation Policy Director, 2011 (Deron, 6-29-2011, The Energy Collective, “An Infrastructure Bank for Transportation,” http://theenergycollective.com/deronlovaas/60343/infrastructure-bank-transportation, accessed 6-24-12, LH) The problem is that in our current political climate, talk of using public funds to create a government bank is a total turn-off to many Republicans. No matter how great its potential benefits, a large, national infrastructure bank is exceedingly unlikely to pass muster with this Congress. NIB unpopular among smaller, rural statesDellinger, author of Interstate 69: The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway, 2010 (Matt, 12-8-10, Transportation Nation, “So You’re Thinking of Starting An Infrastructure Bank…,” http://transportationnation.org/2010/12/08/so-youre-thinking-of-starting-an-infrastructure-bank/, accessed 6-26-12, LH) Similar considerations will make it a challenge to get members of Congress from smaller states to support the Infrastructure Bank. The focus on projects with revenue potential and smart growth worries some rural lawmakers whose districts and states rely on federal largess to maintain long stretches of remote highway and water infrastructure. If the purse strings for infrastructure were ever completely controlled by a five-member board–however impartial–the outcry over earmarks could be replaced by an equal and opposite outcry against “tunnel vision” and “elitism.” Link Outweighs Link TurnPublic cares more about deficit spending than infrastructure investmentMallet, Specialist Transportation Policy, Maguire, Specialist Public Finance, and Kosar, Analyst American National Government, ’11 (William, Steven, and Kevin, National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf, 6/24/12, LS) Sadly, these factors are increasingly endemic in the execution of major infrastructure projects. America’s infrastructure has fallen into a state of disrepair, and will be insufficient to meet future demands and foster competitive growth without significant new investment. However, the public is fed up with massive deficits and cost overruns, and increasingly consider deficit reduction to be a bigger economic priority than infrastructure investment.2 They have lost confidence in government’s ability to choose infrastructure projects wisely, complete them, and bring them in on budget. Opposition in the House – blocking spending outweighs benefits of the planMiller, Kaminski Partners LLC Managing Direct for Infrastructure and Energy, 11 (Joyce, Sallan Foundation, 12-1-11, "The Sad Story Of The National Infrastructure Bank," http://www.sallan.org/Snapshot/2011/12/the_sad_story_of_the_national_infrastructure_bank_1.php accessed 6-26-12, CNM) The bank would be an innovative way to incentivize private investment in new infrastructure projects, especially for new alternative energy and energy efficiency projects. It would blast away the sector silos created by existing legislation and agency priorities, which erect major barriers to creative alternative energy infrastructure projects because they force projects into narrowly defined sectors such as energy, water, transportation and agriculture. In turn, this would facilitate cross-sector projects - for example conversion of municipal solid waste into biodiesel fuel which could reduce reliance on fossil fuel for transportation or generating electricity, or the use of agricultural water reservoirs to generate power for local use by covering them with microfiber covers embedded with photovoltaic cells (PV) which could generate solar power as well as conserve water by reducing evaporation. Covering reservoirs with PV generators would also cut the distance over which power is transmitted, increasing available power, and reduce costs and demand on the grid. So how was this important bill derailed? Republicans have not allowed any legislation proposed by the President to pass, hence the party-line negative vote in the Senate, even by those Republicans who support the bank. Opposition has come from conservatives and tea party supporters, particularly in the House, who view the bank as an undesirable expansion of the role of government and as a new form of government expenditure, something seen as inherently bad. The conservative priority of reducing the national debt creates pressure to block any new spending, no matter how necessary the program. Senator Hatch (Rep-Utah) argued during the floor debate that the proposal was just another spending bill while Senator Lieberman stated "While the goals of the infrastructure bill are worthy, I believe that the most important thing we can do to improve our economy... is to dramatically reduce the debt... unless we can put our economy on sound financial footing by reining in our debt, all additional stimulus efforts will be for naught."[1] AT: Link TurnNo risk of a link turn – no one is supporting the planOrski, Innovation NewsBriefs editor and publisher, 11 (Ken, NewsBriefs, 8-30-11, "Infrastructure Bank: Losing Favor with the White House?" http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house accessed 6-26-12, CNM) President Obama was expected to include the infrastructure bank among his recommended stimulus measures when he lays out his new job-creation plan before the congressional deficit reduction committee in early September. But lately, he seems to have put the idea on the back burner and turned his attention to more traditional "shovel-ready" highway investments using existing financing programs. His advisers may have concluded that the Bank will do little to stimulate immediate job creation--- and that the proposal will find little support among congressional Democrats and Republicans alike. If so, check off the Infrastructure Bank as an idea whose time had come and gone. AT: Insulated From Political AgendaNIB isn’t insulated from political agendas.Indiviglio, The Atlantic, ’10 (Daniel, journalist, spent several years working as an investment banker and a consultant, The Atlantic, “Would a National Infrastructure Bank Help?,” 9/15/10, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/would-a-national-infrastructure-bank-help/63052/#bio, A.D. 6/26/12, JTF) Second, while it seems plausible that the national infrastructure bankers would be less susceptible to political influence than Congress, it's doubtful they would remain completely untainted. Presumably, you would need to have its management appointed by each incoming administration. As a result, whatever party is in power might have the ear of those bankers, and continue to influence spending. NIB is unpopular – fiscal constraints and Congressional hesitancy.Cooper, New York Times, ‘11 (Michael, writer, New York Times, “Group Wants New Bank to Finance Infrastructure,” 3/15/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/us/politics/16infrastructure.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss, A.D. 6/26/12, JTF) The proposal — sponsored by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas — would establish an independent bank to provide loans and loan guarantees for projects of regional or national significance. The idea is to attract more infrastructure investment from the private sector: by creating an infrastructure bank with $10 billion now, they say, they could spur up to $640 billion worth of infrastructure spending over the next decade. “We have a choice,” Mr. Kerry said at a news conference in Washington. “We can either build, and compete, and create jobs for our people, or we can fold up, and let everybody else win. I don’t think that’s America. I don’t believe anybody wants to do that.” To underscore the need for better infrastructure, two frequent rivals were on hand at the news conference: Richard Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the main business lobby. With a nod to the strange-bedfellows experience of having a labor leader as an ally, Mr. Donohue said, “He and I are going to take our show on the road as the new ‘Odd Couple.’”
Link – High Speed RailHigh speed rail has fierce oppositionDovell, Council on Foreign Relations, Contributor, 12 (Elizabeth, 3-7-12, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S. Rail Infrastructure,” http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-rail-infrastructure/p27585, accessed 6-27-12, LH) Funding for the upkeep and expansion of passenger rail--which receives significantly less in federal subsidies than other transportation modes--has remained a controversial issue in Washington. The Obama administration's plan to expand high-speed rail (sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour) faces fierce opposition. Supporters cite the unique benefits of high-speed rail, including energy savings, more efficient mobility, and greater manufacturing opportunities for U.S. companies. Moreover, many U.S. economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant investments in HSR (WashPost). Opponents argue the economic benefits of HSR rarely surpass the costs, and point out that most systems do not turn a profit and rely heavily on government subsidies. Link – Mass TransitMass transit unpopular with RepublicansDenvir, The Guardian, 2012 (Daniel, 6-21-12, The Guardian, “Public Transportation: ‘Don’t like the cuts? Take a hike’,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/public-transportation-cuts-hike, accessed 6-28-12, LH) There was a time when business-minded conservatives understood that, ultimately, government did serve some purpose – if only to create an environment favorable to business. Members of both parties have for decades supported basic funding of the nation's trains and buses. But Corbett's counterparts in Washington now deliver that same heady combination of obliviousness and hostility. The derision of mass transit as a socialist import of European origin, which happens to be perceived also as a welfare subsidy for the black and urban poor, has now seized the entire Republican body politic. Most bizarrely, Tea Party activists around the country have attacked everything from bike lanes to high-speed trains as part of a United Nations conspiracy to create a "one-world order". "Federal transportation and infrastructure policy has traditionally been an area of strong bipartisan agreement," Aaron Naparstek, a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design and founder ofStreetsblog.org told Salon: "Now, it seems, Republicans want to turn cities into a part of the culture wars. Now it's abortion, gay marriage and subways." AT: Mobilizes DemocratsDemocrats won’t push – they want immediate results that the plan can’t provideOrski, Innovation NewsBriefs editor and publisher, 11 (Ken, NewsBriefs, 8-30-11, "Infrastructure Bank: Losing Favor with the White House?" http://www.newgeography.com/content/002408-infrastructure-bank-losing-favor-with-white-house accessed 6-26-12, CNM) Senate Democrats, while not necessarily opposed to another fiscal stimulus, want quick results. They fear that a centralized Infrastructure Bank, with its complex governance structure and layers of bureaucratic conditions, requirements and approvals would be far too slow and cumbersome to be an effective job generator. One or two years could pass before large-scale projects appropriate for Bank financing would get evaluated, selected, approved and under construction, one Senate aide told us. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.66 Mb. Share with your friends:
|